Rush to the Rescue
Scripps-Howard News Service 1.29.02
What is in a word? For America's survival - everything. It may
be my personal obsession, but I am thoroughly convinced that changing
a single word would deal with our fundamental political ills.
Readers of this column will not be surprised to learn the word
is "socialist." In fact, I fear some of you might even
be bored by my obsession. But there is good reason to bring it up
again. Rush Limbaugh, having rendered unique service to this nation
and everyone who resides in it, is becoming increasingly vocal about
socialism. On Wednesday, January 16, he used the word "socialism"
and "socialist programs" innumerable times.
No one is in a comparable position to accomplish the task. Having
overcome deafness even before there was light at the end of the
tunnel, he must be approaching Hero Extraordinary status even in
the minds of socialists, were they capable of honesty in applying
their own criteria.
We might be within one step - I wish I could call it one easy step
- of rescuing our political system. At this point, Rush still refers
to the perpetrators and promoters of the socialist agenda as "Liberals."
The trick is that last step, in a way like the last step toward
actually creating life. We can figure out all the proteins, double
helices, genomes we want. Until we can actually create life from
lifeless matter, we have done nothing.
The gift of life is not in our purview, and hopefully never shall
be. But we could take that other last step without which all the
political battles we fight remain defensive rear-guard actions.
That last step is to reject the untenable, intolerable designation
of persons who impose speech codes, set admissions- and hiring quotas,
aim to destroy our national defense, deconstruct our entire civilization,
see everything as class or race war, and turn our young into instruments
of the state, as "Liberal."
The day we start calling them socialist, which is patently what
they are, the tables will have been turned.
They have good reasons for running from that word. Most Americans
don't much care for socialists.
We could start with members of the "Progressive Caucus"
in the U.S. House of Representatives. Until exposed, they shared
a web site with the Socialist International. They now peeled off,
but their agenda remains the same. Nothing in it sets apart their
purpose from that of the Socialist International's.
We could continue with the Senate. Massachusetts Democrat Edward
Kennedy, with his blatantly socialist rhetoric, is an excellent
candidate. "What?" I hear you say, "JFK's brother,
a socialist?" Well, why not? His father was enamored with the
National Socialists of the Third Reich. Once you scratch the surface,
there is little difference in the underlying ideology.
Of course, socialists hang desperately on surface differences.
A debate with the columnist E. J. Dionne at the monthly luncheon
for chiefs of staff in the U.S. House of Representatives proved
most revealing. The topic was the "Third Way," a popular
ruse of socialists, first applied - can you believe that? - to the
"Bolshevik" wing of the Russian Communist Party. As I
progressed in making the case for the existence of only two truly
different political philosophies (we might call them "American"
and "Socialist"), Mr. Dionne ran out of arguments. But
at the end, making certain there would be no time for me to respond,
he delivered an impassioned soliloquy of outrage that I would dare
to put Stalin and today's "benevolent" European socialists
in the same camp.
Ever since Karl Marx went to a lot of trouble in the "Communist
Manifesto" to identify seven versions of socialism, explaining
why his own brand was different, socialists have been running from
the failures and crimes of "other forms" of socialism
- especially those of Hitler's Third Reich. But whatever the qualifier
that precedes "Socialism" ("National," "Soviet,"
"Democratic"), all share the basic tenets of corrupting
history, concentrating power in the hands of an "enlightened"
ruling class, suppressing the individual as well as the voluntary
community, and dismantling freedom.
Above all, they share a commitment to terminate the influence of
Anglo-American political philosophy and practice.
After various attempts at the physical destruction or takeover
of the English-speaking world had failed, the only remaining course
was to dismantle it from within.
That is what "Liberals" are doing in the United States.
The frustrating thing is that we have always had the means to arrest
our destruction. Throughout her ordeals in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy
was wearing the ruby slippers - the magic tool to take her back
to Kansas - she just didn't realize their power. We, too, have had
the magic tool at all times. What we need is to start calling socialists
what they truly are. If they don't like it, they can simply stop
being socialists. America is generous and will welcome back those
who come to see the light.
But, as I suggested, alone Rush can do the job. If he decides the
time is right, one or two of our elected representatives just might
Then, sooner or later, we can all go home to Kansas.